KELLY: Governor Walker, in February you said that we needed to gain partners in the Arab world. Which Arab country not already in the U.S. led coalition has potential to be our greatest partner?

WALKER: What about then (ph), we need to focus on the ones we have. You look at Egypt, probably the best relationship we’ve had in Israel, at least in my lifetime, incredibly important.

You look at the Saudis — in fact, earlier this year, I met with Saudi leaders, and leaders from the United Arab Emirates, and I asked them what’s the greatest challenge in the world today? Set aside the Iran deal. They said it’s the disengagement of America. We are leading from behind under the Obama-Clinton doctrine — America’s a great country. We need to stand up and start leading again, and we need to have allies, not just in Israel, but throughout the Persian Gulf.”

I mean, could the man even find these places on the map? First of all, what in the world does that mean, “You look at Egypt, probably the best relationship we’ve had in Israel, at least in my lifetime.” Does he think Egypt is in Israel? That “Israel” means something like “the Middle East”? If so, no wonder Congress is willing to do whatever Tel Aviv asks. I mean, how can you decline, when the Middle East calls?

As for having allies “throughout the Persian Gulf,” the US already does. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman are all US allies. Bahrain hosts the HQ of the Fifth Fleet. We have several thousand troops based in Kuwait. Qatar leases us the al-Udaid Air Force Base. Etc., etc. I’m not sure what the Gulf Cooperation Council states in the Gulf want the US to lead them toward, but their current campaign is in Yemen, which, although I am very critical of the Houthi rebels, I don’t think is a good idea. No doubt they would have wanted us to take the lead there. But, do we need another quagmire? But Walker seems weak-minded enough so maybe all sorts of foreign countries can bamboozle him into doing their adventurism for them.

Cole also destroys Walker with his saber rattling about the Iran Deal:

Then Scott Walker was asked about Iran:

“To me, you terminate the deal on day one, you reinstate the sanctions authorized by Congress, you go to Congress and put in place even more crippling sanctions in place, and then you convince our allies to do the same.
This is not just bad with Iran, this is bad with ISIS. It is tied together, and, once and for all, we need a leader who’s gonna stand up and do something about it.”

So OK, I know the guy hates universities and isn’t very well educated, but surely he can form complete sentences? What does it mean, “This is not just bad with Iran, this is bad with ISIS. It is tied together . . .”

Mr. Walker, I advise against using “this” as a pronoun, since it is vague and weak. It is better as a demonstrative adjective. “This house” is clear and strong. In the sentence above, you haven’t made clear what the referent of “this” is. The deal? How is the agreement reached on inspecting Iran’s civilian nuclear enrichment program “bad with Iran?”
In fact, I don’t think you are using “bad with” in a way recognizable as idiomatic English. Did you mean to say that the nuclear deal is unfortunate with regard to Iran? But how in the world is it also unfortunate with regard to Daesh (what you call ISIS)? Do you understand that Daesh is a hard line Salafi Sunni terrorist organization that kills Shiites on sight? And that Iran is a Shiite country that has been the most effective force in opposing Daesh? You see, it isn’t actually tied together.

How could a nuclear deal with Iran be “bad with ISIS?” The likelihood is that the US will be able now to coordinate more openly with Iran in destroying ISIS.